Baughman

(HC) Brown v. Baughman

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 4, 20212:20-cv-01746California721 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARK ANTHONY BROWN, No. 2:20-cv-1746 JAM KJN P Petitioner, v. ORDER DAVID BAUGHMAN, Respondent. 16 Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 6, 2020, respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that this action is barred by the statute of limitations. (ECF No. 16.) On April 5, 2021, the undersigned granted petitioner a sixty days extension of time to file his opposition. (ECF No. 26.) The undersigned ordered that no further extensions of time would be granted. (Id.) Pending before the court is petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 27.) For the reasons stated herein, petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.